3^^ 






i 
i 



i 



of 
And the 






With •llustrs.tive Maps 
reoroduced from the Exhibit | 
of the 




.[152 



Gfft 

Mrs. Opal L Kunz 

Sept. 13 1934 



LOUISIANA PURCHASE PROGRESS MAPS 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES. 



A series of five maps of the United States showing the original Louisiana and 
the changes in its boundary during the one hundred and thirty-seven years between 
1682, the date of ha. Salle's discovery, and 1819, the date of the purchase of Florida 
form an interesting part of the exhibit of the General I^and Office at the Louisiana 
Purchase Exposition, Differences of opinion have prevailed as to the extent of 
Louisiana as purchased from France. It is believed that these are dne, Jirsi, to a 
misconception of the scope of La Salle's discovery and proclamation, and, second, 
to a misunderstanding of the real significance of the political acts of the United 
States, between 1803 and 1819, affecting that part of La Salle's Louisiana which 
extended along the Gulf coast east of the Mississippi river. It is submitted, as to 
the former, that the "Louisiana Purchase" of 1803 did not include territory beyond 
the limits of the original Louisiana, and as to the latter, that all Spanish doubts 
as to ownership were resolved and permanently settled by the political acts of the 
United States following the purchase from France, but antedating the purchase of 
Florida from Spain. It is believed, also, that a true picture of the extent and 
location of La Salle's Louisiana is shown upon Map No. i. This picture greatly 
assists one to understand the phrase ''the whole of Louisiana" which was used 
in subsequent treaties of cession. 

In the brief discussion of each map which follows, no effort has been made to 
harmonize the conflicting views held and. heretofore published by numerous writers 
upon the subject of Louisiana or the "Louisiana Purchase." These views are as 
diverse as their authorship is numerous. This is not surprising, when it is 
understood that the common effort has been aimed at solving the questions of 
territorial limits of Louisiana, as this province passed from one State to another, 
without first attempting to fix the original limits of the territory thus transferred. 
To this fact, probably, more than any other, may the failure to reach a common 
conclusion be attributed. 

MAP No. 1. 

The greater shaded area shown upon this map is based upon the discoveries 
ai^d proclamation of La Salle, made at the mouth of the Mississippi river April 9, 
1682. This proclamation was made in the presence of the entire party, under arms, 
who chanted the Te Deum, the Exaudiat, the Domine salvuni fac Regem, and, after 
a salute of firearms and cries of "Vive le Roi," La Salle erected a column, and 
while standing near it said, in a loud voice : 

"In the name of the most high, mighty, invincible, and victorious Prince, 
Louis the Great, by the Grace of God King of France and of Navarre, Fourteenth 
of that name, this ninth day of April, one thousand six hundred and eighty-two, 
I, in virtue of the commission of his Majesty which I hold in my hand, and which 
may be seen by all whom it may concern, have taken, and do now take, in the name 
of his Majesty and of his successors to the crown, possession of this country of 
Louisiana, the seas, harbors, ports, bays, adjacent straits, and all the nations, 
people, provinces, cities, towns, villages, mines, minerals, fisheries, streams, and 
rivers, comprised in the extent of said Louisiana, from the mouth of the great river 
St. Louis, on the eastern side, otherwise called Ohio, Aligin, Sipore, or Chukagona, 
and this with the consent of the Chaonanons, Chickachas, and other people dwelling 
therein, with whom we have made alliance ; as also along the river Colbert, or 
Mississippi, and rivers which discharge themselves therein, from its source, beyond 
the country of the Kious or Nadoucessions, and this with their consent, and with the 
consent of the Motantes, Illinois, Mesiganeas, Natches, Koroas, which are the most 
considerable nations dwelling therein, with whom also we have made alliance, either 
by ourselves or by others in our behalf, as far as its mouth by the sea, or Gulf of 
Mexico, about the 27th degree of the elevation of the North Pole, and also to the 



mouth of the river of Palms ; upon tue assurance which we have received from all 
these ualious that we are the first Europeans who have descended or ascended the 
said river Colbert; hereby protesting against all who may in future undertake to 
invade any or all of these countries, people, or lands, above described, to the 
prejudice of the rights of his Majesty, acquired by the consent of the nations herein 
named. Of which, and all that can be needed, I hereby take to witness those who 
hear me, and demand an act of the Notary, as required by law." * 

Title to French territory in the Mississippi valley and along the Gulf of Mexico 
was based upon this voyage and proclamation of La Salle These acts of La Salle 
were, in fact, at the foundation of French ownership, and have been so considered by 
all nations since 16S2. The Louisiana thus claimed embraced two areas of contigu- 
ous territory ; first, the territory drained by the Mississippi river with all of its 
tributaries, and, second, the territory between the Mississippi river and the river 
Palms. The wording of the proclamation is simple and direct, and its meaning seems 
incapable of distortion or of being misunderstood. It appears evident that La Salle 
had no information of territory beyond the sources of the Mississippi river and its 
tributaries to the west, or, if he knew of such territory, he purposely excluded any 
claim to it for France. The western boundary of the original Louisiana is therefore 
traced along the summit of the watershed which defines the drainage basin of the 
Mississippi in that region, viz : around the headwaters both of the Red River and the 
Arkansas with their tributaries, and the Missouri river with all of its great tributaries 
from the west and southwest, to the present northern United States boundary. 

In the effort made to locate the western boundary of La Salle's Louisiana, many 
untenable claims have been put forth by geographers. In one of those claims, the 
province was carried far beyond tne drainage basin of the Mississippi river : in fact, 
across the Rocky mountains to the Pacific coast in the northwest. In another, it is 
assumed that because France at one time claimed the Gulf coast to St. Bernard (now 
Matagorda) ba}', by reason of La Salle's later discoveries, this territory should be 
added to the original Louisiana. A third, while rejecting the Pacific coast extension, 
selected the Rio Grande river as the southwestern boundary,. but, lacking in courage 
of conviction, published maps restricting the limits on the west by the Spanish- 
American compromise line of 1819. The great majority of geographers now reject 
the Pacific coast extension, but there remains a disposition to include the Rio Grande 
country. A careful study of available historical data reveals claims of France at one 
time extending only to the divide between the Colorado river and the Rio Grande : at 
another time to the Rio Grande itself and with spiritual jurisdiction to the Pacific 
coast. In the negotiations with France for the purchase of Louisiana, Napoleon, 
his Minister, Talleyrand, and negotiator Marbois, admitted great obscurity as to 
boundaries, and declared their inability to throw any light upon the subject. The 
negotiations incident to the treaty of 1819, and the maps showing the claims of the 
United States and Spain at the time, seem to show that, for diplomatic reasons pro- 
bably, the United States claimed the territory to the Rio Grande river. Spain 
declared this claim preposterous, and fixed the equally absurd ninety-third degree of 
longitude as her eastern, and onr western, limit. While the compromise line was not 
agreed to as fixing the western limits of the Louisiana purchase from France by the 
United States, but rather as definitely establishing a boundary between Spanish and 
American territory west of the Mississippi river, it is perhaps significant that in its 
beginning east of the Texas territory in question, and in its course northwesterly to 
the 42nd parallel, this boundary approximated the location of the true Louisiana 
boundary of La Salle. It is believed the claim for the Rio Grande river limit is 
untenable, for the several reasons that the southern Texas country was a later dis- 
covery and the reasons offered for its union with Louisiana are unconvincing and 
insufficient : its area was indefinite and its boundaries unknown : it was never made 
a part of La Salle's Louisiana : doubt as to American title was strong enough to insure 
a ready acceptance of the contention of Spain as to her ownership of this portion of 
the Gulf coast in 18 19, and this acceptance- was in marked contrast to the vigorous 
policy pursued in the Perdido river boundary contention, where American ownership 
by virtue of the "Purchase " was declared and maintained by the Government of the 
United States. On the other hand, there is room for but one interpretation of the 
limits of '' Louisiana" as proclaimed by La Salle. It is the line defining the drain- 
age basin of the Mississippi river on the west, and this line is therefore adopted as the 
" Louisiana Purchase " boundary through the present State of Texas. No available 
fact warrants the acceptance of the Spanish-American boundary of 1819, established 
sixteen years after the purchase of Louisiana, as the boundary of this territory. 

It has been held that the province of Louisiana as proclaimed by La Salle should 
be enlarged on the north by the addition of the territory south of the forty-ninth 
paralled and west of the headwaters of the Mississippi river : that is to say, by the 
drainage basin of the Red River of the Norths It is certain that this territorry was 



not in La Salle's Louisiana, and it is even doubtful that it ever really belonged to France. 
It is universally conceded that the powers signatory to the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, 
in the belief that the headwaters of the Mississippi River were north of the forty-ninth 
parallel, intended to confirm France in the possession, not of territory beyond the 
Mississippi drainage, but of Mississippi valley territory which was proclaimed 
"Louisiana" by La Stile thirty-one years before. But French ownership, even if 
conceded, by virtue of the treaty of Utrecht, would be unimportant, for such concess- 
ion would, in no degree, support the contention that the Red River basin formed a 
part of Louisiana. All of the French territory to the north of La Salle's Louisiana, 
of whatever extent east or west of the Great Lakes, was transferred to Great Britain 
in 1763, and no French claim to any part of it has appeared since that time. 

The origin of American title to the district north and west of the headwaters of 
the Mississippi river and south of the forty-ninth parallel may be found in the 
treaties between the United States and Great Britain of 1783 and 18 17, the former 
defining territorial limits at the close of the Revolutionary war, and the latter fixing 
the forty-ninth parallel as the north boundary of the United States between the Lake 
of the Woods and the Rocky Mountains. France, having parted with the district 
affected by these treaties long prior to their negotiation by the powers interested, was 
wholly indifferent to the transfers of the territory made thereby. The drainage 
basin of the Red River of the North is therefore excluded from the territory of 
Louisiana purchased from France in 1803. 

Referring to the extension of the south boundary of the original Louisiana 
territory, as shown on the map, appeal is again had to the proclamation of La Salle, 
who said : " and also to the mouth of the River Palms." This river was located with 
some difficulty. The first mention of it was found in a large volume belonging to the 
records of the Divisions of Private Lands, etc., General Land Office, entitled: "A 
Complete Hi•^torical, Chronological, and Geographical American Atlas, etc., pub- 
lished by Carey and Lea, Philadelphia, 1822." In the historical data descriptive of 
Florida, was found the record of a grant in 1526, to Pamphilo de Narvaez from 
Charles the Fifth, "of all the lands from Cape Florida to the river Palmes, in the 
Gulf of Mexico." This river appears upon the map of Florida in the atlas, bnt it 
is not named. Cape Florida is shown upon all modern maps, as well as ancient 
publications, but appeal to maps published early in the last century was necessary to 
locate Palm river. It emptied into Palm sound', now called Sarasota bay, and the 
southern extremity of Palm island, which was also shown on the ancient maj^s, is 
opposite the mouth of the river. This island is now called Sarasota key. This grant 
of land by Spain, one hundred and fifty-six years before La Salle's voyage down the 
Mississippi, was peculiar in that its limits were defined in specific terms. It is here 
noted merely as offering a reasonable suggestion for the action of La Salle, in choos- 
ing Palm river as the eastern limit of Louisiana on the Gulf coast. The fact of his 
choice is unquestioned. 

Commercial rights over this original Louisiana, as far as the Illinois, for a period 
of ten years, were granted by Louis XIV. to Antoine de Crozat, September 14, 17 12, 
and the territory itself was ceded to Spain by treaty of November 3, 1762 : the 
language of the treaty being, " the whole country known under the name of Louisi- 
ana, together with New Orleans, and the island on which that city stands." This 
was the first transfer relating to the territory of Louisiana. 

* This translation of La Salle's proclamation is taken from Spark's "Life of La 
Salle," published at Boston, Mass., 1844. Francis Parkman's translation of the pro- 
clamation, in his " Discovery of the Great West," 1869, (Boston — Little, Brown & Co.) 
agrees with the above, except that he omitted the names of the treaty tribes, but 
refers to such omissions in a foot note, pp. 282, 283, and says, " a copy of the original 
of the Proces Verbal (the proclamation) is before me. It bears the name of Jacques 
de la Metairie, notary of Frontenac, who was one of the party." Translations, in 
whole or in part, of the proclamation of La Salle, by numerous other authors have 
been examined by the writer, but in no essential particular did any of these transla- 
tions differ from those of Sparks or Parkman quoted or referred to above. 

MAP No. 2. 

The great but partially temporary shrinkage in area of the territory of Louisiana, 
as shown by this map, was caused, not by any changes in description of the territory 
ceded to Spain by treaty of November 3, 1762, but by the failure of France to deliver 
to Spain all of the territory described in that treaty, and was also due to the cession 
to Great Britain, by Spain in 176^, of all of her territory, undescribed as to boundaries, 
south of lat. 31° and east of the Mississippi river. 

Four months after the cession by France to Spain of " the whole territory known 
under the name of Louisiana," the representatives of France and Spain, and of Great 



8 

Britain and Portugal, met at Paris and entered into a treaty apparently intended to fix 
more definitely the boundaries of their respective possessions in North America. The 
attitude of Spain during these negotiations was inexplicable. At this time she was 
one of the greatest of the powers, and it would be idle to assume that her diplomats 
were unaware of the claim of France during the previous eighty years, to that part of 
Louisiana which lay east of the Mississippi river, especially when the commercial 
grant of Louis XIV. to Crozat with its transfer to the Mississippi Company, 28 and 32 
years before, not only definitely specified this territory, but also had become a matter 
of wide-spread knowledge, through the tremendous financial crisis and panic which 
followed the operations of the later grantee. It can only be assumed that Spanish 
reasons of State, or the exigencies of diplomacy, permitted France to cede to Great 
Britain the territory east of the Mississippi and north of lat. 31° which four months 
before she had plainly ceded toSpain. By this same treaty, of February 10, 1763, Spain, 
also, ceded to Great Britain all of her territory east of the Mississippi river and south 
of lat. 31°, so that when the actual delivery of Louisiana, by France to Spain, occurred 
on April 21, 1764, the territorial boundaries were as shown on this map. Spain's title 
to all of the territory south of lat. 31° at this time was undoubtedly good : for to her 
undisputed title to that part of Florida which was obtained through discovery and 
colonization, was added the strip of original Louisiana territory between the Miss- 
issippi river and the river Palms, obtained by the treaty of November 3, 1762. This 
tract is left unshaded upon the map, the same as the northern portions of the 
alienated Louisiana territory. 

MAP No. 3. 

As indicated upon this map, the boundaries of the territory of Louisiana west of 
the Mississippi river suffered no changes between April 21, 1764, the date of delivery 
to Spain, and 1800, when the retrocession from Spain to France, by the secret treaty 
of San Ildefonso, occurred. Attention is directed to the shaded' area of the map 
over that part of the original Louisiana, as proclaimed by La Salle, which lies 
south of lat. 31° and east of the Mississippi river. Twenty years after the treaty 
of Paris, of February 10, 1763, in the settlement of boundaries at the close of the 
Revolutionary War, the United States took over from Great Britain all that part of 
the original Louisiana ceded to the latter by France in 1763, viz., the territory of 
Louisiana east of the Mississippi river and north of lat. 31° N. At this time 
also. September 3, 1783, owing to Spanish claims and aggression, Great Britain 
ceded back to Spain, without boundary delimitations, the territory south of lat. 
31° and east of the Mississippi river which the former had received, also without 
boundary delimitations, through the definitive treaty of 1763. It should be remem- 
bered here that that part of this territory shaded in agreement with the rest of the 
area called "Louisiana" formed a part of the original territory of Louisiana 
proclaimed by La Salle, and ceded by treaty stipulation to Spain in 1762. 

The government and people of the United States who, in 1783, came into 
possession of that part of the original Louisiana ceded by France to Great Britain, 
had no reason to question the validity of the cession of 1763 by FVance, since Spain 
had endorsed it and approved it. James Madison, Secretary of State, in a letter to 
Robert Livingston, Minister to France, of date March 31, 1803 (see Vol. 2 of 
American State Papers, F"oreign Relations, p. 577), says of this cession: "Spain 
might not unfairly be considered as ceding back to France what France had ceded 
to her ; inasmuch as the cession of it to Great Britain was made for the benefit of 
Spain, to whom, on that account, Cuba was restored. The effect was precisely the 
same as if France had, in form, made the cession to Spain, and Spain had assigned 
it over to Great Britain ; and the cession may the more aptly be considered as 
passing through Spain, as Spain herself was a party to the treaty by which it was 
conveyed to Great Britain." Spain obtained title from France to "the whole of 
Louisiana in 1762, and was therefore in position to cede the Gnlf coast to Great 
Britain in 1763. There was nothing peculiar in the retrocession of this tract by 
Great Britain to Spain in 1783 ; nothing apparent to justify the contention of Spain, 
following the retrocession to France in 1800 of "the colony or province of Louisiana 
with the same extent it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France 
possessed it," that this territory belonged to and formed a part of her original 
possessions in Florida. 

By secret treaty, known as the "Treaty of San Ildefonso, " of October i, 1800, 
Spain retroceded to France "the colony or province of Louisiana with the same 
extent it nozv has in the hands of Spai7t, and that it had when France possessed it, 
and such as it should be after the treaty subsequently entered into between Spain 
and the other States." Bv this treaty France again came into possession, so far as 
Spanish interests were concerned, of the original territory of Louisiana ; but the 



\ 







^==nr7 — / -^-f-^ / ^^^^ 


■^ //""^^ / 


\z;;' 






/ '~~ t^^.___^ / / J 7""^^*^""^/^ ,jI ^^ 


A,, •' / •'^^fc- 


/ ' 






/ / 1 — ~~~— ^ /^ / /~~~~~~->>.^ js5* r""^'^^^^^ 




'^-~rj-/ 






/ / / ^'~~~!~~~'^^-^ / .-5'-->-J^^^^^^^?''^^^^^^^^^^?S?I 




y^ ' 






"^ r^—-^^ ^ ^~~"^?3^^?^^^5t ^^^^C ^ -iS^^^^^i 


Si rw /Xv^ ^^'^^ 


/ ^^^■ 






/ 7 "^~--_ / / ^ fP^^^i^r^Tr~-^^£f^^^:T'^^^^^^^^^^<^' 




j 






I / """ r~~~~~~— ^ / ^ // r "^"""^X irfl«lU7Vul"4sMV^^*^ /^Y^^ 




'"^T-^^^^^^ 






^~~tL-_ / / 7^5^pr\tC^'^^^^^2I^ 


"^Tfl/ 1 J^mS^ 


iW/^r 






l^^^' — ~j:^:=--'4i5^T^^r^^^*'^^£j ^ 




^^^» 




^^ 


fffSSA 




^5f°^ '' 




; - — 1— -^_/l 


^~~L__j-^l A> / /[''--^ M ^^^f^~^->-ji^'^~~-'^u^ J~^1'^ 




;i;33>*^^''~~ i 




~l 


cfl — " — T^T^-J-4^^,-.y^F^^^^^T~~~^^ 




^T'---^ 




- 


ffP^^ 


1 






1 — ^ 




r 


wi-- 




^"^HT "'• 




klT^^''- 








T^H 


^. -— -r-- 




"«[ - 1 








.in„.?& 


/ 


z 


\ 


■~^ 






^ 


^ 




J- 


A 




:^J^ 


^ 




pi 


% 






■ ■■ 






1 




#' 


^ ^-W* — A 


© 


, ■. 






^5 


^E" ^ 








" ■'^ 












T IVVuX 


LJ-. 






t< 












■^ 


::|f%i^.i CJu 


^Jl— ■ 






' fe- S}?fet£S^'5^^ 


x^>-t t, ^ 1* -jj " ^X 


•$> \ 






^^^^^\^i_i— -^— "4r 


— i"^' 




*■ 1 — 


> 1^-' : jf'^f^'n^^^^^^S^ 


'^^^W\\ ^"ClX 


^V-r: 






i 1 -^- '^Ww^^^^^^^ 


^^^Wx ^ 


u^^' 




' 


"r 1 ''- 1- ^"'0't\t^^^^^^'i^^?^ T* 


^^}KJ M^JX-"^^ — 


v \ 






r i-jf ^ i'^^^^'^Sj^^^t^^^^ 


^ViS\ 


\ — ^'^ 






1 Ji^-*'^^^^W^^S5 


''°'"'' W s _-A— — '^^ 


\3-. 






U^C^^^^^^^l^i^J^^i^^&^^i^^^'. '' "^r" '■"-^^^JC^^ 


\\t>.------Y'| \ 


A^"""^' 






-^^^^^^Si^^^^^S\\' v 'kfc;'^^^^^^^ 


Tri\\\ \ J V,- — 


^\ ' 




\\j^ 


i^8 


S ^ -S i- 


1 



10 

same was, of course, shorn of the large area east of the Mississippi river and north 
of lat. 31°, which, for seventeen years past, had been a part of the United States. 
This retroceded Louisiana undoubtedly embraced that portion of the original 
territory which lies south of lat. 31° and east of the Mississippi river, whatever may 
have been its extent. The wording of the treaty of San Ildefonso precludes any 
other view than that of retrocession, and the United States so held and understood 
it, as shown by acts of sovereignty hereinafter noted. 

MAP No. 4-. 

This map shows the area ot the territory of Louisiana as purchased from France 
in 1803. It will be noted that no change in the boundary of that part west of Miss- 
issippi river has occurred since 1762, but that the atea of the tract along the Gulf 
coast, east of the river, is materially reduced. 

April 30, 1803, France ceded to the United States the territory of Louisiana, 
"with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when 
France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered 
into between Spain and other States." using the identical language employed in the 
cession to France by Spain in 1800, but adding : " The French Republic has an in- 
contestable title to the domain and to the possession of said territory." The confine- 
ment of American claims, under the treaty of 1803, to the area west of the Perdido 
river, was doubtless due to the fact of early Spanish settlement at Pensacola bay and 
at Fort St. Marks on the Appalachee river, and to the common misunderstanding of 
the real rights of the United States to all of the territory south of lat. 31° which 
formed a part of the original Louisiana proclaimed by La Salle. The first settle- 
ments in this territory were made by French colonists in 1699, but seventeen years 
after La Salle's proclamation, and there can be no shadow of doubt that these 
settlements were made for the purpose of occupying and exploiting the vast domain 
added to France, under the name " Louisiana," through the courage and energy of 
the great explorer. The real meaning and significance of La Salle's claim to the 
eastern Gulf coast as far as Palm river seems to have been overlooked, but this can- 
not be said of that portion between the Perdido river and the Mississippi river. While 
Spanish diplomacy was undoubtedly aimed at retaining this territory at the time of 
the retrocession to France, in 1800, notwithstanding the unequivocal wording of the 
treaty of San Ildefonso to the contrary, the goverment of the United States refused to 
accept any such boundary delimitation in 1803. 

February 24, 1804, Congress passed an act for laying and collecting duties in 
this territory, and on March 26 the district was added to the new Territory of 
Orleans. In October, iSio, the President, by proclamation, directed the Governor of 
Orleans Territory to take possession of the territory. April 14, 1812, a part of these 
lands was annexed to the State of Louisiana, and one month later the remainder, 
lying between the Pearl and Perdido rivers, was annexed to the Territory of Missis- 
sippi. March 3, 1817, Congress divided this tract, giving approximately half of it to 
the State of Alabama. Both Mississippi and Alabama came into the Union before 
the treaty with Spain, for Florida, in 1819, the former the year before the treaty was 
negotiated, and the latter the same year, but two years before the treaty was finally 
ratified. During this period, also, the United Slates made a census of the population 
of the district. These citations are offered for the purpose of showing that this 
goverment, in its sovereign capacit}', and through both its law-making and executive 
branches, had settled and finally disposed of all questions of ownership of the 
territory between the Mississippi and Perdido rivers and south of lat. 31°, which were 
raised by Spain after the purchase from France in 1803, and prior to the Florida 
treaty of 18 19. The fact that the United States Supreme Court, in many cases, has 
supported the political acts of the government relating to this territory, is of passing 
interest ; these decisions, however, can have no direct bearing upon questions of title 
affecting the territory in the aggregate. 



11 




12 
MAP No. 5. 

This map shows the extent of the " Louisiana Purchase " after its boundaries of 
1803 had been modified through the treaty with vSpain ceding Florida to the United 
States and fixing the boundary between the United States and Spanish possessions 
west of the Mississippi river, in 1819. It is of interest because the American gains 
and losses by that treaty are shown, and because Spain was satisfied to fix her most 
northern boundary west of the Rocky mountains at the parallel of 42° north. This 
western United States-Spanish boundary, as finally settled, was later accepted as the 
boundary between the Republic of Mexico and the United States, and still later in 
part as the northern boundary of the Republic of Texas It will be noted that two 
small tracts, marked "A," not forming a part of La Salle's Louisiana, became a part 
of the United States, and that a much larger area shown upon the map, which is a 
part of the Mississippi watershed and was therefore a part of La Salle's Louisiana, 
was surrendered to vSpain, in exchange. 



13 




14 



SUMMARY. 

1. French title to the territory called "Louisiana" in the Mississippi valley, 
had its origin and was based upon the discovery and proclamation of La Salle, 
April 9, 1682. The title " Louisiana," as proclaimed by La Salle, may not properly 
be applied to other and doubtful French possessions in America ; and since French 
ownership of territory beyond the watershed line at the time of the purchase is a 
matter of grave doubt and cannot be established, La Salle's "Louisiana" may not 
properly include such alleged possessions. The Spanish territory directly drained 
into the Gulf of Mexico west of the Mississippi river, or into the Gulf of California, or 
the Spanish and Oregon territory drained into the Pacific ocean, or the territory 
drained into Hudson bay, never belonged to France by virtue of La Salle's discovery 
and proclamation of 1682, when the limits of Louisiana were defined, and title to 
these districts was neither offered nor transferred by France to the United States in 
the sale of 1803. 

2. French title to Gulf territory from the Mississippi river to Palm river, on the 
Gulf coast of Florida, as a part of original Louisiana, was as good as French title 
to the Mississippi valley, for both districts came under the French flag at the same 
time and for the same reason, viz., the discoveries of La Salle and his proclamation 
based thereon, at the mouth of the Mississippi river, April 9, 1682. It therefore 
follows that subsequent cessions of "the whole territory known under the name of 
Louisiana," or of "the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent 
* * * that it had when France possessed it," conveyed title to this territory, just 
as surely as they conveyed title to territory drained by the Mississippi river and its 
tributaries, and the title thus conveyed was just as good. 

3. The government of the United States acted strictly within its treaty rights 
when, following the purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803, it occupied the 
territory between the Mississippi and Perdido rivers ; took a census of the people, 
levied and collected taxes, and finally, prior to the purchase of Florida in 1819, 
divided the tract into three separate parcels, and added one each to the States of 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Map No. 4, therefore, properly exhibits the 
outboundaries of the Louisiana purchased from France in 1803 and asserted by the 
United States thereafter, and Map No. 5 shows the modifications of that boundary 
west of the Mississippi river, agreed to in the treaty with Spain in 1819. 

Note : A discussion of the accession of the Oregon territory, of the territory 
received by the annexation of Texas, of the territory ceded in the settlement of the 
Mexican war, or that embraced in the Gadsden purchase, is not pertinent here, 
since the boundaries of the Louisiana Purchase were in no manner changed, the 
agreement between Spain and the United States in 1819 being accepted in all 
subsequent transfers of the regions adjacent. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 543 137 2 



PRESS OF W. F. ROBERTS 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

IT I'i' nil' I'"' mil mil mil nil 



014 543 137 2 



